Talk:2021 United States Electoral College vote count

Speeches during debates

The speeches of the Senators and members of the House will be printed in the Congressional Record 167(4), which I will be adding to Wikisource. Any reference to speeches should be probably be connected to the appropriate page there, once it is set up; this should probably also happen to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, but I don’t have the privilege to edit that page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC).

TE(æ)A,ea., thank your for this addition. This is a good addition and will be helpful for future citations and information. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have started work here; the first part should be finished within a few days. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
• I have finished the House’s discussion, and have transcluded most of the same; it is available here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

A suggestion

I suggest that the "Objection defeated" and "Objection not heard" cells be in different shades of red. I believe that would aid readability and accessibility. 101090ABC (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I see the suggestion was adopted. Thank you. 101090ABC (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

List of politicians favoring or opposing objections

Must lists of Republicans favoring or opposing objections be necessary? If so, why? Seems that Democrats aren't listed because decisions of Democratic Party must have been unanimous, right? --George Ho (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the current format for "not voting", and the "Republicans voting against" link doesn't work for me, but it does seem necessary to include this in some form. My WP:CRYSTAL ball says these votes will be relevant in the future, and (in more policy-relevant opinions) there has been quite a lot of discussion about the Republican aye votes, at least in the Senate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason is standard practice in some form, usually in prose. For articles with more importance, the votes are put into tables like this article. It is just that there was a significant split in votes as usually the table only needs the show function for less than ten names. Rarely, there are articles that have listed in a collapsable table how all 435 member of the House have voted. Personally, I feel that we could just list only the votes of the smaller group as it covers how the show button is normally used. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I copied the collapsible lists from the parliamentary Brexit votes article. We should include the names of the Democratic senators too, in the extended list. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Where the votes of individual members have not been discussed in other sources, they should not be included; if a list is desired, readers can be referred to the official list on the Congress Web-site, the report of the same in the Congressional Record (on the same Web-site), or the same transcribed on Wikisource (which I am currently working on). It is generally inappropriate and overmuch lengthy to include such a list here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

The list is collapsed by default, so length should not be a matter. As for requiring other sources to mention them first, there are a few sources that we can choose from. It is much simpler to use government sources rather than publications. Personally, it would be odd to only mention those who objected, didn't vote, or were Independents. Can you clarify why it would be inappropriate? --Super Goku V (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of facts. If someone wanted the latter (which, in this case, is a list of people who voted for or against an objection), he may find it on the official Web-site, or in an official publication, or a transcription of the same at Wikisource, as I have mentioned. My comment asked for a source referring to the vote of a specific person on a measure, not a list of people who voted for or against. Wikipedia may mention these individual voters, but a source that merely repeats this list found in the Record is not sufficient to include that list on Wikipedia. Where there is but a small number of votes for or against, they may be mentioned; but a list of hundreds, or a full list in any situation, is too cumbersome and lengthy to be included in an article. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

I think it's important to keep. I agree with power~enwiki: the specifics of who voted "aye" or "nay" on that vote are important, and whether a given Congressperson voted to overturn the results of a national election is an increasingly relevant piece of information. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Footnote about Vermont putting Biden over the 270 EV threshold

Not sure why the footnote was removed with the single word justification of "unnecessary". As I put in my edit summary, the footnote points out that all subsequent EV counting have no impact on outcome. Banana Republic (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not true. They are not counted progressively, they are added all at the end. It's also completely unnecessary and illustrates nothing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that a running total is not officially kept. The votes are counted in a certain sequence, and based on that sequence (the alphabetical order of the states), Biden/Harris got passed the 270 threshold with Vermont. Banana Republic (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. Please provide RS that says this. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:CALC. You don't need WP:RS for simple calculations. Banana Republic (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

While I don't think this needs to be referenced, this reference is already in the article. Banana Republic (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, now is it WP:DUE? Given that CNN has it, I don't really care much one way or the other. But it really doesn't seem that terribly interesting to add. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It's already in the article. It's just adds value for readers skimming the table without reading the paragraphs above the table. Banana Republic (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What value? It has zero value to readers. The CNN source appears to be a live feed, not a retrospective article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Zero value? that's your POV. The material is already in the article. Putting it as a footnote makes it easier to see for readers who just skim the table without reading the text before the table. Banana Republic (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And if you want a "retrospective article", here is one from NPR. Banana Republic (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Poll: List of companies that halted political contributions in January 2021

Would it be useful to Wikipedia readers for us to have a LIST article that itemizes (with references) all of the companies that decided to cease their political contributions to members of Congress who had voted against certifying the Electoral College results? I would be happy to get it started, if there is support from the community. I honestly don't know if this is generally acceptable or frowned upon. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess silence is compliance. I'll get started on the List. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Previous Electoral college counts?

Back in 2016 several democratic congress-members raised objections to electoral votes from certain states though no senators supported the objections so it was not debated.

In 2004 congress-members and a senator objected to the electoral votes from Ohio resulting in a two hour debate.

I am not aware of other instances where this occurred.

I believe pages should be created for all electoral college counts. The info-boxes should include a map of the US that is color coded to show in which states objections were raised but not debated, states where objections were debated and states where no objections were raised. Furthermore the info-box should include who the president of the senate was, as well as the election results.

I am interested in hearing what fellow editors think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH (talk • contribs) 18:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 United States Electoral College count

January 6, 2021

Map of objections to electoral votes.png

Incumbent President Donald Trump Republican

Here is a rendition of what such infobox could look like.

Given that the event has been mostly overlooked for the majority of the country's history, would enough records exist to make pages for every electoral collage vote count? SkyGuy94 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There have been videos of many of the past electoral vote counts. Furthermore objections have been made many times in the past like in 1820 to the electoral votes of Missouri. More interestingly however the objection process has been successful in the past, as in 1872 congress voted to disqualify the electoral votes of Arkansas and Louisiana. As there have been many cases where objections have been raised to the electoral college I believe it is imperative to properly document it. BrendonJH (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Additionally according to ballotpedia in 1969 objections were made to the electoral college votes in North Carolina, but were voted down 58-33 in the Senate and 228-170 in the House. BrendonJH (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose to merge Sedition Caucus into 2021 United States Electoral College vote count. I think that the content in the Sedition Caucus article can easily be explained in the context of 2021 United States Electoral College vote count, and the latter article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the former article will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. 06:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

• Appropriately pinging participants in the recent deletion discussion: @KidAd, Egsan Bacon, RexSueciae, XOR'easter, Alalch Emis, Novem Linguae, Tpdwkouaa, Chrisahn, VQuakr, Devonian Wombat, Darknipples, and Hard thoughtful work:. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@AllegedlyHuman: FWIW, the timing seems to imply that this is a spinoff of the ongoing discussion at Talk:Sedition Caucus#Remove the list of names (more specifically Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) comment therein). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed - Although the articles are related, the two articles are sufficiently developed for each to merit its own articles. Banana Republic (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that the concept of the "Sedition Caucus," the usage of the term, and its coverage are significant enough for a separate article. Further, I don't think that merging the articles would allow each to be given the attention they deserve. This page definitely needs at least a small section explaining how the vote count resulted in the term "Sedition Caucus" being thrown around. That aside, I believe that in these circumstances an outright merger is unnecessary. RexSueciae (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. As far as the sizes of the two articles are concerned, a combined page wouldn't necessarily be overwhelming, but it would be awkward. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sedition Caucus passes WP:GNG. In my opinion, this was litigated a week ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedition Caucus, where people had the option to vote merge, but instead voted keep. The consensus seems clear. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Aside from the fact that we could, why exactly would this be better than having two separate articles? Neither is a stub, and I feel that having the entirety of Sedition Caucus in this article would be cumbersome. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Irrespective of the current wording of the other Wikipedia article, the Sedition Caucus are also the ones who more recently voted against holding an investigation into the fascist riot that itself is not even the main subject of this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article Sedition Caucus on its own is notable and distinct. Agree with Novem Linguae above, that the previous consensus was clear. I have misgivings about TOA's possible ulterior motive to gloss over what happened at the US Capitol, and who helped enable it. – Hard thoughtful work (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Both articles are rather sizeable, and clearly work better separated. It would cause problems, such as loss of notable content, if these articles were merged. This seems like a backdoor deletion attempt.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 11:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article in dire need of changes to uphold NPOV Wiki standards

In my honest opinion, the article (in its current state) is parroting propaganda in several sections, it and fails to maintain the NPOV standard Wikipedia strives for. Until the allegations being made of our former president (and his party members) at very least become court-worthy in the eyes of the Department of Justice, many of the statements reflected in the article should be made to either (a) clearly state when they are simply being alleged, or (b) be removed entirely. 2601:243:CC81:56B0:909B:F06E:2342:C245 (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

? Would you please be more specific as to which statements & sections fail WP:NOV? Peaceray (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

In any case, we cite information here that is published in reliable sources. If you don't like, disagree with, or feel the currently-cited sources are not neutral, please provide reliable sources that would justify removing whatever it is you seem to be objecting to here. Until that time, we defer to the information currently cited from sources in the MSM that have been verified as accurate in their reporting. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)